beta
Text
1. As to KRW 100,345,988 and KRW 44,530,761 among the Plaintiff, Defendant A Co., Ltd., from March 4, 2017 to May 23, 2017.
Reasons
1. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as shown in the annexed sheet of “the cause of claim.”
2. Determination
A. According to the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, Gap evidence Nos. 2 (part), 6, and 7 against defendant A corporation (hereinafter "Defendant A"), and the entire purport of the arguments, defendant A borrowed KRW 47,00,000 from the Industrial Bank of Korea as loans for small and medium enterprise purchase on June 29, 2006, and KRW 40,250,000 as loans for enterprise purchase on March 30, 2006, respectively. Each of the above claims was transferred in sequence to the plaintiff through the same securitization specialized company, Yangyang-gu Social Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ha Yangyang-gu Social Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant A"), and notified the defendant A of the transfer of the principal amount to KRW 87,711,575 won (= Principal amount, KRW 39,1216,48,590,409,4295).25
According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 10,345,98 won (=87,711,575 won) and delay damages for the principal amount of KRW 44,530,761 (=39,121,166 won) and the balance of principal amount of KRW 44,530,761 (=39,121,166 won).
The Plaintiff, while taking over other claims against the Defendant A, submitted evidence Nos. 1 (including additional numbers), 2, 4, and 5. However, it is difficult to recognize whether the claims still exist, and the balance as at the time when the principal and interest was recovered, etc. (the “the balance of the principal” as evidence No. 5 cannot be said to be correct because the stated amount is different from the previous principal amount) and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part of this case is without merit.
Therefore, with respect to the Plaintiff KRW 100,345,98 and KRW 44,530,761 among them, Defendant A, from March 4, 2017 on the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, has a considerable dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation. From March 4, 2017 until May 23, 2017, the ruling date of this case, is stipulated under the Civil Act.